Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 15 of 2021 and the inquiry report into the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills, incorporating dissenting reports. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports.

Leave granted.

I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry report into the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills, which was tabled out of session last Friday, as well as the committee's 15th scrutiny report of 2021, which was tabled out of session in early December.

As members know, following a referral from the Attorney-General, the committee inquired into and reported on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and two related bills. These bills seek to remedy a significant gap in our discrimination laws to protect people of faith against discrimination. While we have federal antidiscrimination laws relating to sex, race, disability and age, there is no dedicated federal law to protect against discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or activity, despite our international human rights obligation to do so. International human rights law protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and this right is the essence of a free society. It includes the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief, and the freedom, either individually or in community with others, to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. Protecting the right to enjoy religious freedoms requires constant vigilance in a democratic, pluralist country like Australia. This is particularly relevant for minority religious groups, who are currently more likely to suffer from direct discrimination, but also for Christians, whose genuinely held religious views are increasingly being silenced.

In this inquiry the committee received 205 public submissions and one confidential submission and held three public hearings, receiving evidence from religious organisations, peak bodies, community groups, academics, legal experts and the Attorney-General's Department. The committee also conducted a survey, enabling members of the public to easily express their views on the issues of these bills. The committee received over 48,000 responses, with 82 per cent of respondents supporting the bills currently before parliament. I would like to thank all those individuals and groups that generously gave their time to assist the committee in this inquiry.

Almost all submitters and witnesses recognised the importance of protecting the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and activity. However, differences arose regarding how best to achieve these protections. The committee acknowledges these bills are contentious and considers there has been substantial confusion and misinformation about parts of the legislation. In particular, there has been confusion around statements of belief and how the legislation will apply in the context of schools and workplaces.

In relation to religious schools, the committee considers it is important that schools can act in accordance with their faith, including by upholding their ethos through employment and enrolment, as this is an essential element of the right to freedom of religion. Indeed, it is often said that religious values are more caught than taught.

In relation to statements of belief, it is important to note that freedom of expression is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion. While the committee heard different perspectives as to the likely impact of this provision, the committee considers few, if any, of the examples of types of statements that would be protected by this bill would be protected in reality. The committee considers it is important that people are able to explain, discuss, share and express their moderate, genuine, faith based beliefs without fear of being silenced and that the bill contains significant safeguards. However, to alleviate some of the confusion surrounding the statement of belief clause, the committee has recommended the explanatory memorandum be amended to provide greater clarity about what sort of statements this bill would protect.

Of course, the right to freedom of religion must be balanced against other fundamental human rights to ensure all human rights are protected as far as possible. Drawing on a decade of experience in applying a human rights lens to proposed legislation, and assisted by submitters and witnesses to this inquiry, the committee is well placed to consider this important balancing act. Recognising the wide variety of views in relation to this topic, the committee considers it important to continue the conversation with the Australian people as to how to balance these rights and has urged future governments to monitor the impact of this legislation.

After carefully considering the evidence, the committee has concluded that, subject to the recommendations made by the committee, the religious discrimination legislation package remains essential to protect and uphold the fundamental right to freedom of religion and belief and should be passed.

Turning finally to the committee's 15th scrutiny report: in this report the committee considered 24 new bills and six legislative instruments, commented on three bills and concluded examination of one legislative instrument. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's reports. With these comments, I commend these reports to the chamber.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to make some comments as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on the tabling of the committee's report on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills. I particularly thank the chair for her great work in herding those cats together. We don't always agree on every topic, but she always treats me with respect. I also thank the rest of the committee, who perhaps didn't plan to spend the last 71 days after parliament rose doing that, and the very hardworking secretariat. I know what you did last summer, and it wasn't much fun at all!

I will start by saying something about the timing and the time frame imposed on the committee to conduct this inquiry. The Attorney-General allowed this committee only 71 days—with Christmas and New Year in the middle—to conduct this inquiry and report to both houses of parliament. There are at least 12 religious celebrations during that period—Christmas, Hanukkah and others. Almost the entire 71 days fell during the school holidays; so, sorry to my boys. For many stakeholders the timing of the inquiry during religious celebrations and holidays posed great difficulties. Many organisations rely on volunteers to prepare submissions—a time-consuming and complex task. Many volunteers were writing submissions when they would have preferred to spend time with their families over the holidays. The Attorney-General's own department failed to get their submission in on time—the Attorney-General's own department. Yet the Attorney-General expected volunteers to spend their holidays writing submissions.

Despite being a secular nation, from 1901 to 2010 our House of Representatives has commenced the sitting day with a prayer. Since 2010 an acknowledgement of country has preceded the prayer on each sitting day, recognising two ancient traditions of wisdom. Of course, no parliamentarian is required to recite prayers or to be present in the chamber while this national prayer is read. The fact that Australia is a secular nation is acknowledged by section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution, but this longstanding tradition of prayer in the people's house reflects the duality of our secular nation with that religious vibe.

There is no doubt that the right to freedom of religion is recognised in international human rights law treaties that Australia is a signatory to. The freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief is absolute and cannot be limited or confined to protect other interests. As the Ruddock review noted, they cannot be departed from, even in times of national emergency. In contrast, the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be limited in specified circumstances.

Labor members of this committee understand the importance of this bill to protect people of faith against discrimination. We understand that there are real fears held by people of faith about not being able to practise their faith freely. We also understand that many of the concerns repeatedly raised about this legislation have not been addressed by the Morrison government. The committee heard evidence from many stakeholders about their concerns that some of the provisions in this legislative package will harm people, particularly people in the LGBTIQ community and people with disabilities, to name a few. To the trans community in particular, I say, 'I hear you.'

There are many unresolved issues with these bills. The majority report makes 12 recommendations to improve these bills. Labor members of the committee attached additional comments to the report. Please read these comments. The Morrison government should take note of all of the issues raised in the report and the additional comments before these bills are brought into this chamber.

I'd also just comment on the use of the committee process. The Attorney-General referred the bills to the committee late last year. As I've said, 71 days were allowed for the committee to inquire and report on the bills, with only three days of public hearings. I find it frustrating and quite astounding that there was a drafting error that was known about by the Attorney-General's Department that was not pointed out to the human rights committee. And the day before the committee report was due to be handed down, the Prime Minister publicly flagged that a significant amendment would be made to the bills before they were passed by this parliament, but our committee was not provided with that amendment.

I've been Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights since 2016. I take my role on this committee very seriously. I note that one of the previous chairs, who's on this committee, Mr Goodenough, has been a great contributor as well. This committee has scrutinised many difficult and complex pieces of legislation during that time. Reports from this committee are important. This is the only committee that examines all bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights, but what is the worth of a report that examines a bill the Prime Minister already knows he will significantly amend before it is passed? That is putting marketing before law, a press release before common sense. A cynical person may think that the committee has been used as a political device, rather than an important parliamentary tool to ensure that legislation passed by this parliament does not harm Australians.

Although the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has not had the opportunity to consider the significant amendments the Prime Minister has flagged, I would encourage all parliamentarians to read the evidence set out in the majority report, as well as the additional comments from Labor members, and focus their minds on the serious issues that they raise. The Australian Labor Party has a long history of fighting to prevent discrimination against people, including people of faith. The antidiscrimination legislation that Prime Minister Morrison personally introduced should unite our nation, not divide it. Labor members urge the Morrison government to work with Labor and the state and territory governments to resolve the outstanding issues identified in the additional comments and in the majority report of this committee as a matter of urgency.